July 30, 2012

"Swing states are always much more likely to have these kinds of laws restricting voting,” said Wendy Weiser, director of Brennan’s Democracy Program. “To the extent that it’s a political tactic to try and game the system, … it does make sense that that is where we see a lot of that because that is where it could make a difference to the outcome.”

Weiser's argument doesn't prove as much as she'd like, because it's also true that it's in swing states where there's the most reason to worry about fraud. It's a corollary to the old saying "if it's not close, they can't cheat."

Weiser doesn't worry about fraud. Based on a quick sample of her writings, press releases and interviews, she is all about preventing "voter suppression." The notion that there is a legitimate interest in preventing fraud never enters her thinking. Or at least it never enters her pronouncements. What she really thinks about this is hidden.

Here in Swing Virginia the current flap is over a national Democratic front group, doing mail solicting and gathering voter personal info including social security numbers, under the guise of being the Virginia State Board of Elections, then the data goes instead to a storefront box in a UPS store.

I think if we could ever have a time to talk about voter ID laws when an election wasn't right around the corner, we'd never have these drag out fights. Everyone would just realize: "Huh. That makes sense. Let's just make sure people can actually get the IDs."

Then, we'd tune up DMVs and like locations so people could get to them easier/access them at all. Then, problem solved. The election every two-years thing is really what's hurting common sense things like this.

""Swing states are always much more likely to have these kinds of laws restricting voting,” said Wendy Weiser, director of Brennan’s Democracy Program."

That's true only if an official I.D. keeps one from voting more than once, just as an official I.D. keeps one from driving more than one car at once, riding on more than one plane at once, drawing more than one welfare check at once.

I completely understand the voracious appetite of the Left for legalized theft of wealth, but must they be so blatant about their efforts to cheat at the ballot box?

a Tunica County, Miss., jury convicted NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots. Sowers is identified on an NAACP website as a member of the Tunica County NAACPExecutive Committee.

Sowers received a five-year prison term for each of the 10 counts, but Circuit Court Judge Charles Webster permitted Sowers to serve those terms concurrently, according to the Tunica Times, the only media outlet to cover the sentencing.

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

"Numerous voters told Fox News that they were stunned that their signatures were faked on absentee ballot applications and ballots, which were cast as real votes in their names in the 2009 primary election."

-- ID Laws sure would have helped find that out. Unless you think that ID laws will also mean that we just randomly send out absentee ballots. Also, that Salon piece is interesting in that we're immediately assuming a guy under legal investigation is telling the truth. I find it interesting how quickly people are willing to believe him.

machine said... The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

Hilarious.

Um, and then what?

I love watching you leftists at work demanding "evidence" as if you could possibly care.

There is a multitude of real world evidence and facts running counter to your silly beliefs, yet you still cling to your silly beliefs.

@ Jay - A republican official, under oath, stating that the party is trying to suppress minority votes through voter ids laws isn't topical to a voter id discussion on whether it is vote suppression or fraud prevention?

I do think it odd though that we can all watch people walk in to a voting area, claim to be Eric Holder, get a ballot, then walk away and some will say: "There's no way any one would do that AND ACTUALLY VOTE." And some will say: "This is a problem we should solve."

Dose of Sanity said... @ Jay - A republican official, under oath, stating that the party is trying to suppress minority votes through voter ids laws isn't topical to a voter id discussion on whether it is vote suppression or fraud prevention?

"That is, every Republican except for Florida’s former Republican Party chairman Jim Greer, who, scorned by his party and in deep legal trouble, blew the lid off what he claims was a systemic effort to suppress the black vote. In a 630-page deposition recorded over two days in late May, Greer, who is on trial for corruption charges, unloaded a litany of charges against the “whack-a-do, right-wing crazies” in his party, including the effort to suppress the black vote."

-- He is a former Republican official. Something about him funneling money or something caused him to get kicked out. Probably for committing crimes.

But hey, he's totally trustworthy. So, clearly, we should believe him when he tells the left exactly what they want to hear to cut a deal.

Making sure that the voters can legally vote isn't a "restriction". It's a protection aganist fraud and criminal activity by political parties.

That only ONE particular political party has objections to voter verification shows that they have relied on such criminal activity and fraud to win elections in the past and they don't want the gravy train to end in giving up the advantage. You can also tell this is the case based on the moronic arguments they use to oppose such laws.

There is no reason to bring this up, unless you're willing to also bring up all the nastiness, some of it very true, about ACORN.

It's unfounded allegations by a man desperate to save his skin. It's a distraction until we know more; bringing it up is pointless. Walking it back is good, pretending you're just asking questions expected. But don't insult our intelligence by pretending you only had good, honest and true intentions for bringing it up.

My view is that Garbage and inSanity here are what are termed "useful dupes", but that Eric Holder, et al. are just being cynical corrupt politicians when they try to equate Voter-ID with voter suppression. The left believes that power is everything and that the ends justify the means. Which is why they tend to abolish elections when they take control of a country though democratic means. In any case, I do not doubt, and most likely, most here also do not doubt, that the primary, and only practical, reason that they oppose Voter-ID laws is that they know that one of the reasons that they are in power is that fraudulent voting and fraudulent elections are sometimes the only thing that keeps them from losing elections.

It's not hard to get an id. you need one to conduct the most basic business in life, and there is no epidemic of disenfranchized people who somehow can't get ID's.

And did I mention that you need one to conduct the most basic business in life? Maybe, if some dems are so disenfranchised it's because they never bothered getting the ID that would allow them to function in society, so dems, if they really cared about poor people, would try to make it easier for people to get said ID cards. So they can do stuff like provide ID if they have to pick up a package at the PO. Or go to a bar, or get a library card. etc etc etc.

Sometimes, I find it concerning that people's beliefs about democrats or liberals cause them to assume things about me that aren't true.

This isn't the first voter ID thread on althouse I've commented on.

It's always about a balance. Yes, we should stop fraud - and YES, there is a level of restriction which will prevent some people from voting. You can imagine some extreme case easily to prove the line exists - and now we are just talking about where that line falls.

We don't have to bicker all the time people. Really. (except Jay, he cannot ever admit to any point I make, or actually say something nice about a liberal/dem/me)

Anyone who participates in society at all, if only to sponge off of it, has an ID.

I guess I have to commend the Democrats for caring so much that a few hundred radical libertarian/anarchist types who live in the mountains of Montana, and don't have ID, will be able to vote.

The only other reason that anyone of any political persuasion would oppose voter ID laws is that they might make fraud a bit less laughably easy. It wouldn't be nice of me to assume that Wendy Weiser might have a vested interest in promoting vote fraud.

Instead of dismissing concerns about lack of availability of IDs, I want to meet it head on. How has the government failed such a basic service? If we don't have the funds and means to get citizens basics, like IDs, we need to serious curtail our extra-spending until we can deliver this to them. We have no need for things like cowboy poetry and NPR when the poor, minorities, the elderly and single mothers are being denied the ability to get IDs. What's more important? All things considered or ensuring that an old woman gets her ID so she can participate in civil life?

If we didn't have to bicker, you would not have instantly thrown up easily dismissible accusations of racism against an entire political party. If you want to be treated with respect and not lumped in with people who accuse their political opponents of racism... it's best not to go around taking actions that accuse your political opponents of racism. Maybe you were just being lazy on thinking how your statement would sound, so I'll give you a pass.

@ Jay - A republican official, under oath, stating that the party is trying to suppress minority votes through voter ids laws isn't topical to a voter id discussion on whether it is vote suppression or fraud prevention?

I would say it is, but the article also says he's "disgraced" which would be a hint he's no longer in charge because of such behavior.

That's a great point about IDs and the availability. Perhaps that's a route to a solution in this debate.

Currently, many people who don't drive don't necessarily have a state issued ID, because frankly, they don't need one. While getting an ID to vote is USUALLY free under voter ID laws, quite frankly they can't get to the DMV during operating hours to get one.

Yes - this seems dire for most people. Surely they've needed an id to get a bank account? Surely they've taken a day off of work? What about sick time?

Well, as a former resident of Milwaukee's east side, I can assure you that people like this do exist. They bust their ass working for less than what most of us make in a hour. It's not fair, but it is what it is.

Maybe we could have a weekend or nighttime staffed ID-issuing centers? I think that would go a long way.

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

So Pennsylvania is trying to put laws in place to prevent something that isn't even happening ( which you must admit because if they could show it they would)....

Because it seems clear that just because something is not being investigated does not mean it is not happening. Frankly, we pass laws daily that have no bearing on things currently happening. Why, in this one case, does it matter that it doesn't appear to be happening?

"Currently, many people who don't drive don't necessarily have a state issued ID, because frankly, they don't need one."

Bullshit.

I use a state-issued ID a few times a day. The last time anyone actually asked for my Driver's License, per se was when I made a lane change without signalling on the evening of New Year's Eve. State Police, after determining that I was sober, let me off with a friendly warning that the ramp where I made the lane change was a hazard for motorcyclists, and that I needed to be sure that they could anticipate my movements.

Driving is arguably the least-common reason we use our state-issued ID cards. Someone who doesn't drive will need one, too.

I am trying to understand the thesis that requiring some sort of ID disfranchises voters--Do I have that right?

Since the requirement for a photo ID is required for all but the most simple life events, I fail to understand the argument. As a 70 YO male, I have to show a picture ID to buy beer in Memphis; I have to show a picture ID to board an airplane; I have to show a photo ID to drive a car--so if a photo ID is so onerous, how do the ctizens survive in this environment?

Regarding Racine County: It was investigated by a right wing sheriff and a right wing DA, and nothing was found. That's after various douchebags like Reince Priebus and others claiming in the media that there was. Some things never change.

"As a 70 YO male, I have to show a picture ID to buy beer in Memphis; I have to show a picture ID to board an airplane"

If you have a stuffy nose, you have to show a picture ID to get a decongestant that works. Where is the Democratic outrage? Where is the AARP outrage? (AARP claims that voter ID laws disenfranchise seniors)

What about if we were to accept a photo of your headstone, in lieu of ID? Would THAT satisfy Democrats that nobody is getting disenfranchised?

I mean, I do understand that dead people have a very difficult time getting a state ID card, and that one wants to be sure that they won't be kept from voting for Democrats, by some right-wing lunatics who want to deny the dead their basic rights.

Over 65% of the population supports Voter ID laws while less than 45% support Obamacare. Some Dems are coming very close to encouraging people to dis-obey voter ID laws. Should Repubs do the same for Obamacare?

Neither is voting. Some people choose never to register, nor vote, for such trivial reasons as wanting to avoid getting a jury summons.

It's a free country. If you don't want to vote, you don't have to. On average, the majority of Americans choose not to, though sometimes we do manage to get a bit over half of eligible citizens to vote in Presidential elections.

How many people who are so cut off from society that they don't feel the need for an ID, actually choose to vote, when so many people who are so engaged, still don't?

Currently, many people who don't drive don't necessarily have a state issued ID, because frankly, they don't need one. While getting an ID to vote is USUALLY free under voter ID laws, quite frankly they can't get to the DMV during operating hours to get one.

If they can't get to the DMV, how do they get to the polls?

I've yet to hear a compelling argument how showing a photo ID is an insurmountable hurdle.

I was trying to point out that none of them are rights granted within the Constitution - but the way I phrased it makes it seem like the Constitution would require you to vote.

Poorly phrased on my part, mea culpa.

While voting certainly isn't required, if someone feels even an inkling like they want to vote, we should help them. Even if they all want to vote against us - it's pretty much the basis of our whole society. (and, again, fraud is equally damaging)

Dose of Sanity said... Should we stop fraud? Hell yes. Should we disenfranchise voters? Hell no.

We can all agree to that - the issue of how to go about it is another story

We don't all agree about this. The left asserts that all attempts to stop fraud are attempts at voter disenfranchisement, see garage for an example. While you may accurately reply that garage is of the nutty left and is therefore of no consequence, Democratic Party policy is exactly the same as garage's.

If you think that policy is wrong you should make that argument to those you claim you disagree with. Instead you responded to the issue of voter ID by publicizing a discredited criminal's accusation of voter suppression. If you weren't making tha accusation that the goal of voter ID is voter suppression how is your link responsive to the issue at all? And you wonder why people "bicker" at your comments? It's you who first questioned the motives of those against voter fraud.

If you think that policy is wrong you should make that argument to those you claim you disagree with. Instead you responded to the issue of voter ID by publicizing a discredited criminal's accusation of voter suppression. If you weren't making tha accusation that the goal of voter ID is voter suppression how is your link responsive to the issue at all? And you wonder why people "bicker" at your comments? It's you who first questioned the motives of those against voter fraud.

The only "facts" being put forth at the time were voter fraud arguments - and accusations that if you thought voter id laws were being used to surpress votes, you too were a criminal.

The point of linking that is that if even an inkling of that is true, perhaps we should slow in our zeal to implement voter ID laws?

Is it acceptable that because voters aren't TECHNICALLY disenfranchised, a party can push the laws because they know the practical effect will be to prevent some voters from voting? A question worth answering before we accuse the dead of voting.

The wards in milwaukee are usually within walking distance, and are open from 7am - 8pm, beyond most people's shift times, so they don't have to take off work, etc.

Point taken, however, its still not a compelling argument that its impossible to get to the DMV. I like many others find the time to go there during normal business hours.

As others have stated before, its hard to believe one can participate in even basic societal transactions without an ID. Do they work? If so, they must provide photo ID as part of completing a Form I-9.

Is it acceptable that because voters aren't TECHNICALLY disenfranchised, a party can push the laws because they know the practical effect will be to prevent some voters from voting? A question worth answering before we accuse the dead of voting.

So here again you're asserting that those for voter ID are attempting to disenfranchise rather than stop fraud. Back to the question, why does it surprise you that people trying to stop voter fraud disagree with you, or in your parlance, "bicker". You're impugning their motives. Let me guess, you're impugning their motives Sanely, right? So it shouldn't lead to "bickering".

Dose of Sanity said... Is it acceptable that because voters aren't TECHNICALLY disenfranchised, a party can push the laws because they know the practical effect will be to prevent some voters from voting?

You do understand that states have passed Voter ID laws and held elections, right?

Well that's clearer. But here's the thing. I don't personally know ANYONE over 16 without an ID. So, "meh", limited sympathy from me, despite my sensitivity to the "Constitutional right" argument. I have to show an ID to buy a gun and exercise my Second Amendment Constitutional right. Are you suggesting we drop that ID requirement too?

Garage and I have been round and round on this issue and he's heard my story about the real tipping point for me before: I was staying in LaCrosse during the Kapanke recall election, when I was asked by a Democrat supporter in the hotel bar to accompany her to the polls and vote because she'd give me the name of someone she knew was out of town. And I thought, "there's nothing in place to prevent that". A real wake up call.

Without granting that voter fraud is "non-existent" (anyone remember 1960? Or "Landslide Lyndon?"), why does it matter if it's non-existent. We have lots of laws against things that rarely happen, the point of which is to protect the thing we're protecting from fraud that COULD happen. Without voter ID, COULD there be more voter fraud? COULD some voters vote twice? Of course. Should we assume, however, that NO ONE would stoop this low, that we are in a world of angels? No, of course not.

The point of voter ID requirements is to protect the franchise, which all Americans have an interest in seeing done.

If voter ID laws only asked a certain class of voters to show IDs, yes that would be discriminatory. But they ask everyone.

For new states getting into it, like Pennsylvania, will it be a hardship on those voters who, while caring enough about their state and country to vote, don't care to have any ID that would allow them to cash a check, drive a car or fly. Yes, those unusual people will face a hardship. However, that's why we have the League of Women Voters, political parties, and the state election boards -- to help those who want to vote to get an ID so they can. The election is 100 days away. Plenty of time for a committed voter to deal with their problem, and plenty of time for the various parties, NGOs and government agencies involved in this to help them.

If you fall into the left's framing trap of proving that fraud is rampant before having a law against it, you're sunk. But it's a false assumption that such must be the case before a law is passed.

"I was trying to point out that none of them are rights granted within the Constitution"

So is the right to keep and bear arms. Try to buy a gun without a valid, state-issued picture ID. It can be required for an ammunition purchase, too (handled like cigarettes or beer, depending on the type).

I'm just curious as to why something so "incredibly important" is handled so flippantly. What other thing in life with ANY value is controlled by a "Trust me" mentality to this level?

Is it acceptable that because voters aren't TECHNICALLY disenfranchised, a party can push the laws because they know the practical effect will be to prevent some voters from voting? A question worth answering before we accuse the dead of voting.

If somebody is too lazy/disengaged to get an ID, them not voting is not that big of a concern. We seriously expect somebody who cannot pull off getting an ID to have a clue about any issues in any election...ever?

While voting certainly isn't required, if someone feels even an inkling like they want to vote, we should help them.

Getting an ID would be several times more helpful than voting. Then they might be able to get jobs, cash checks, open accounts, etc.

Oh, and they could vote ALSO.

But all the sudden in the summer President Obama is running for reelection we need voter ID laws, voter purges, voter caging....Without having to show why it's necessary.

It was shown that somebody can walk into a DC precinct and simply ask for AG Eric Holder's ballot and get it. Not even saying they were Eric Holder, just asking for it.

Then why couldn't Pennsylvania show it? It's a big state....should be easy if it's as rampant as claimed...

Can you explain why so many precincts --- primarily in Democratic strongholds --- tend to have more ballots than registered voters?

I think it is telling that politicians would rather throw up their hands and cry "civil rights violation" instead of actually SOLVE the problem - that a group of marginal people in their jurisdiction have issues securing photo ID.

If a politician/bureaucrat can't come up with a solution to the problem of obtaining photo ID, why in the world should they be trusted to solve BIGGER issues? I can't think of another issue that screams "we are incompetent" like this one.

Dose of Sanity said...Certainly. If someone is too stupid or lazy to get a free state issued ID, they are unworthy of being allowed to vote.

Wow. Should we include a literacy exam too?

A ballot IS kind of a literacy exam.

How hard is it to get a state ID in Wisconsin?

You need a State ID and a social security number to open a bank account. You need some form of ID to cash a check even at a currency exchange. You need an ID with proof of your age to buy liquor.I had to prove who I was for jury duty. When I registered to vote I had to have an ID with my address. In Illinois you get a voter registration card.I've been asked to produce that card only once since I've been 21, but I've had to show my drivers licence every election.

Somebody please tell me why showing an ID to vote is a burden on the voter.

So I guess you've decided playing "Gotcha!" is more fun than trying to have an honest debate, DoS. Oh well.

Back to the original topic - Democrats never seem to have much of an answer as to why they are willing to put such STRENUOUS effort into defeating attempts to safeguard voting. It seems like a reasonable compromise is to try to make sure everybody can get an ID, and yet that never seems to interest the D.'s.

"Skookum John said... Certainly. If someone is too stupid or lazy to get a free state issued ID, they are unworthy of being allowed to vote."

Unworthy does not describe the best priciple. A better principle would be that responsible citizenship allows for minimal sacrifices. The right to vote entails the ridiculously easily accomplished requirement of getting a picture ID. People who don't get one because they have no reason to now have a reason. Of course we should make it fairly easy to obtain, although we should resist the inevitable erosion of standards the left will immediately embark on if enacted. If eligible voters choose not to get one that's their business.

Government requires sacrifices far more onerous than this, such as jury duty, without a second thought. So it's hard to believe people crying that the sacrifice is too great aren't genuine, and calling such sacrifices racist seals the deal.

"I think they are being targetted for voting (D) and not (R), but that's just me. I don't think it is racist motivations, despite the obvious racial implications."

-- Likening it to Jim Crow laws in the south and poll taxes has everything to do with racist motivations. See, this is why everyone assumes you're calling people racist. Because you have such a weak grasp on history you don't even know what you're accusing people of.

Sanity, if you don't want to sound like you are accusing people of racism... maybe stop saying, essentially: "Gee. What you guys are doing is really racist, isn't it?" It tends to come across as, well, saying that we're racist.

Sanity, if you don't want to sound like you are accusing people of racism... maybe stop saying, essentially: "Gee. What you guys are doing is really racist, isn't it?" It tends to come across as, well, saying that we're racist.

I was trying to say that, I was trying to say "Gee, what you guys are doing is exactly like what was done the in past to stop people from voting".

The targeted group might be different, but the tactics aren't. I think it's a pretty good answer to a "gosh golly, we're just trying to stop fraud. there can't POSSIBLY be another motivation here".

Wow - sorry, I actually wasn't trying to accuse anyone of being racist.

I was trying to use that these same tactics were used to prevent groups of people from voting in the past.

If that is indeed the case then its an epic fail on your part. The simple act of obtaining an ID isn't any more burdensome than registering to vote in the first place. Several commenters have listed some of the most basic transactions that require an ID so its simply a stretch on your part to claim any significant portion of the electorate doesn't have an ID or that obtaining one is an insurmountable hurdle.

Sanity, except the problem is, the argument being moved forward -isn't- that the targets or motivation have changed. That's why people use explicit comparisons to Jim Crow. It is not an innocent analogy; it is designed to poison the idea of voter ID laws by tainting them with racist accusations. It's intellectually dishonest, and you should not fall into the trap of using it, especially since people have been more than forthcoming with completely non-racial reasons for it.

Garage has probably unwittingly encouraged more fence sitters to vote against his party than he has saved from disenfranchisement.

If I could save one person from being disenfranchied at the cost of 100 people voting against my ideas, I would do it every time. But then again, I'm okay with losing elections as long as we build that more perfect union one day.

So given that fact, why don't you produce some evidence that a voter ID requirement has kept a single person from voting?

If the people pushing these voter ID laws didn't think it would keep people from voting they would have never went through the trouble of enacting them in the first place. All but the most deluded idiot knows why these laws were passed, but you'll go on and put on a show that it's for some good moral reason. It's not, and everyone knows it.

Dose of Sanity said...If I could save one person from being disenfranchied at the cost of 100 people voting against my ideas, I would do it every time. But then again, I'm okay with losing elections as long as we build that more perfect union one day.

I would prefer to keep that one individual from voting 100 times myself, even at the cost of disenfranching myself, no matter who's ideas he was voting for or against.

The opponents of Voter ID laws claim that incidences of voter fraud are rare, but to fully believe that, you have to believe that the winners of elections proceed to launch objective and aggressive investigations of circumstances that put them in power.

Old fashioned liberals like me used to laugh at obvious conflicts of interest like that. It's like the scene in "Guys and Dolls" where the gangster rolls blank dice, but says he remembers where the spots were.

-- We don't need to prove fraud; we simply have to show it is a reasonable concern. People walked into a polling place, asked for a famous person's ballot and were given it. There is a clear opportunity for fraud.

Voter ID laws exist in many places. Voter turn out has not been suppressed.

We've done both the things you want (prove the possibility of fraud, shown that there is no harm). So, you're on board, right?

Do that. Please. Just like driving. Fine with me if a bunch of dumb fuckers don't vote.

In my area the driving exam is so dumbed down it isn't even funny. No wait, it is funny. It's a ridiculously hilariously stupid reading exam designed to allow the most idiotic driver. It is deeply offensive to anyone who studied for it.

It made me feel kind of good though being in that huge room with all those other dumb asses. It was a happy fun day, actually, like, "Helloooooooo, everybody."

I should be more clear; we don't need to prove that the law stops fraud. We merely have to show that it does no harm. It being on the books is meant to punish those who break it; law is not solely a deterrent. See how easily weaselly arguments like that sneak by when you're not 100% vigilant?

This exact rationale delayed efforts like The Innocence Project for decades. Did you accept that innocent people were not on death row since public proof innocent people were on death row wasn't available?

And then to describe any other belief as a logical fallacy??? When you get your talking points do you even think about them?

Let's look at Leslyn's post. Because it is an example of -why- people on the right are so frustrated arguing with the left. Packed into just those three lines are a heap of assertions and assumptions that you need to be ever-vigilant to find.

For example, the assumption that law is solely useful as a deterrent. No thought is even given that we should have laws on the books to punish people for criminal behavior (to throw the book at them.)

We are told only one reason is a valid reason for doing something, when in fact, other reasons could be valid.

We expend so much energy dragging out each hidden assumption, exposing it, and showing why it is false, that we will, undoubtedly, miss one, which will then be sprung like a trap.

If you can't be rigorous in attacking the opponent's ideology in a clear way, don't be surprised when even I get tired of going through the effort to suss out the hidden parts of your arguments to deconstruct what is wrong with them. Have some intellectual integrity and save us all the trouble of knocking down bad arguments so we can focus on the good ones.

"I'm not bringing up the legal standard for voter ID laws. Nor am I bringing up an argument that it would be a deterrent for fraud.

I'm proposing the primary argument that vote fraud is the reason for more restrictive voter ID laws, and asking to have that argument justified, with facts and not beliefs."

-- You are bringing up the legal standard, else you wouldn't be talking about the legal standards. Your entire statement hinges on it deterring fraud: "Then: Prove that restrictive voter ID laws eliminate fraud." Laws don't stop behaviors except through deterrence (murder laws do not stop murder, just some potential repeat offenders.)

You are not proposing the primary argument; you are proposing what you think is the primary argument. In fact, I even unpackaged that assumption to show you that there was another perfectly valid reason. If you actually debated what people put forward, instead of assuming everyone else to only be able to argue vague caricatures of the opposition's argument, you might understand what I'm trying to explain.

Also, you have had facts provided for you, but ignore them. Repeatedly. More people (total, percentage, etc.) are voting; where the rate of increase has not kept up, it is not in a large enough difference to have statistical meaning.

No need to pile on Leslyn's hypothesis--the only way to prove fraud as near as i can see is ask voters in the polling place to prove their identity--shouldnt be hard as citizens have to prove their identity every day. There is a strong presumption that voters who cannot prove their identity are quite likely fradulent. So if Leslyn is OK with that approach to provind fraud we can move on to her next thesis. That thesis is equally flawed--we have laws on the books that proscribe murder, rape, armed robbery etc--except those laws to not eliminate those acts.

I do not expect a rejoiner from Leslyn, but her "logic" leaves much to be desired.

The unproven use of sock puppets by the left in the Althouse comments is analogous to voter fraud. Multiple voice (votes) by the same individual is entertaining at best and utterly disingenuous at worst.